"Bottom of the ninth inning. The potential winning run strides to the plate.

This situation occurs several times during the baseball season, but it takes a clutch performer to go yard, walk-off style. SportsCenter wants to know which hitters you would trust to end the game with a home run, SportsNation?

Below are 10 of the top hitters in the game today and we'd like you to rank them in terms of which ones you would count on to come through in the clutch. Simply drag the numbers onto the photos and click submit when you are done."

A-Rod's the 2nd best player on that list, that should be where he's ranked. Pujols number 1. Ortiz/Manny at 4/5. Bonds in his prime would be number 1 easily but he's struggling this year, so he doesn't get up there. Based on this year, Thome would be close to the top, having a great season.

Guess Again. Arod is struggling to stay out of last over at ESPN. And there are probably 20 other players that if they put them on the list would get more votes than the choker. Clutch and Arod go together like good and goverment, Clinton and integrity, Bengi Molina and Stolen bases, Victor Martinez and good defense, etc..

TheYanks04 wrote:Guess Again. Arod is struggling to stay out of last over at ESPN. And there are probably 20 other players that if they put them on the list would get more votes than the choker. Clutch and Arod go together like good and goverment, Clinton and integrity, Bengi Molina and Stolen bases, Victor Martinez and good defense, etc..

LOL.

Are you actually using an ESPN poll to support your argument? I knew your arguments were weak, but this takes the cake.

HOOTIE...I know you're a whiz when it comes to this stuff. Can you help me out here?

BronXBombers51 wrote:

davidmarver wrote:

BronXBombers51 wrote:

davidmarver wrote:

BronXBombers51 wrote:Clutch hitters don't exist.

Be careful. The reason the word 'clutch' cannot be attributed to individual players is because of the lack of a large enough sample size. This doesn't mean clutch players don't exist, there's just not enough time in players' careers to statistically prove it.

Explain something to me.

How much of a sample size would you need in order to deem a player clutch? I mean, think of the sample size it would take in order to call a player a 'great hitter.' A few years worth of great hitting?

Now obviously you'd have a substantially less sample size of clutch situations, since there are so many fewer of these situations. But wouldn't a player that does well during that sample size (no matter how much smaller it may be), be considered clutch?

I mean, let's say the most 'clutch situations' in any player's career is 200 ABs. Now, that is a small sample size. However, if that is the maximum amount of situations ANYONE gets, doesn't that make it the standard...and thus anyone who performs well in those 200 ABs is a clutch player?

It depends on the population mean (his career average) and sample size (career at bats) and the sample mean (his clutch average) and that sample size (clutch at bats). It's going to be a lot of at bats either way at an average much higher than normal.

So if a player hits at a better average during clutch situations than his career average, he's clutch?

Or are you saying that the clutch situations are not a large enough sample size to say that that player is clutch?

And in case what you're saying is the latter, wouldn't it basically mean that no player is clutch? If nobody can ever achieve a sample size large enough to make the stats meaningful, then basically nobody can be labeled a clutch player, correct?